CJEU Joined Cases C-364/24 and C-393/24 / Judgment

Giorgio Fidenato, en son nom propre et en tant que propriétaire de l’exploitation agricole « In Trois » v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Forest
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (First Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
05/02/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:67

Title II: Freedoms

Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business

Title III: Equality

Article 21 - Non-discrimination

Title VII: General provisions

Article 52 - Scope and interpretation

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Joined Cases C-364/24 and C-393/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    References for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – Measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in the environment – Directive 2001/18/EC – Article 26c(1) and (3) – Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 – Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321 – Prohibition of the cultivation of MON 810 GMO maize in Italy – Validity – Free movement of goods – Articles 34 and 114 TFEU – Principles of proportionality and non-discrimination – Freedom to conduct a business – Articles 16 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/412 of 11 March 2015, nor that of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321 of 3 March 2016 adjusting the geographical scope of the authorisation for cultivation of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MON 810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6).

    2. Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18, as modified by Directive 2015/412,

      must be interpreted as meaning that the decisions adopted on the basis of those provisions, which are not conditional on any specific justification, must not necessarily be covered by one of the grounds set out in points (a) to (g) of the first subparagraph of Article 26b(3) of Directive 2001/18, as amended by Directive 2015/412.

    3. Implementing Decision 2016/321

      must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes a penalty for the non-compliance with the prohibition provided for therein.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    42. By the first question in Case C‑364/24, the first to third questions and the first part of the fifth question in Case C‑393/24, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring courts ask the Court, in essence, whether Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 is in conformity with primary EU law, and more specifically with Article 3 TEU, Articles 18, 26, 34 to 36 and 114 TFEU, Article 216(2) TFEU, Articles 16, 21 and 52 of the Charter as well as with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

    ...

    66. In the second place, the referring court in Case C‑393/24 has doubts as to whether, by allowing the prohibition of the cultivation of a GMO or a group of GMOs in all or part of the territory of the Member States, Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 introduces discrimination contrary to Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter, both between farmers of different Member States, depending on whether those Member States authorise or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, and between farmers of a Member State prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs, to the prejudice of the farmers wishing to cultivate seeds thus modified

    67. On the first point, it should be recalled that the provisions of Article 21(2) of the Charter, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality, correspond to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU and must be applied in accordance with that article (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2024, Lithuania and Others v Parliament and Council (Mobility package), C‑541/20 to C‑555/20, EU:C:2024:818, paragraph 311 and the case-law cited). It should also be borne in mind that Article 18 TFEU applies independently only in situations governed by EU law for which the FEU Treaty lays down no specific rules of non-discrimination (judgment of 20 June 2024, Faurécia, C‑420/23, EU:C:2024:534, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited). As the principle of non-discrimination is implemented, in the field of free movement of goods, inter alia by Articles 34 and 35 TFEU, it is in the light of those provisions that an answer is to be given to the referring court.

    ...

    73. It follows from the foregoing that consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination, implemented in Articles 34 and 35 TFEU and enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter.

    74. As concerns, in the third place, the questions of the referring courts concerning the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 in the light of Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter, it should be recalled that, under Article 16, the freedom to conduct a business in accordance with EU law and national laws and practices is recognised. It is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the protection afforded by Article 16 covers the freedom to exercise an economic or commercial activity, the freedom of contract and free competition and covers, in particular, the freedom to choose with whom to do business (judgment of 12 January 2023, TP (Audiovisual editor for public television), C‑356/21, EU:C:2023:9, paragraph 74 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    78. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to rule on the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 in the light of Article 52 of the Charter as such an analysis would imply that the measures prohibiting the cultivation of a GMO set out in Article 26c(1) and (3) could be regarded as restrictions to the freedom to conduct a business.

    79. In the light of the foregoing, Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 does not appear to be contrary to Article 16 of the Charter.

    ...

    89. It follows from all the foregoing considerations that consideration of the first question in Case C‑364/24 as well as the first to third questions and the first part of the fifth question in Case C‑393/24 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 26c(1) and (3) of Directive 2001/18 in the light of Article 3 TEU, Articles 18, 26, 34 to 36, 114 TFEU, Article 216(2) TFEU, Articles 16 and 21 of the Charter and the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)